I'm not sure how to use this forum but since these priests are independent sedevacantists there's not going to be any proof really to show unless people have recorded phone calls or recorded talking to them in person. One of them I have screenshots of what he's talked to me privately and the other is hearsay slightly. I've talked with the couple that moved but on the phone about being careful with certain priests. They assume crawford calling everyday to see how they are, he cares. From a cults perspective people could call others to keep them within the cult so they don't start using their critical thinking skills and asking too many questions. There's just so much drama within independent Catholics and stay at home Catholics (more extreme sede circles). 

If more stories add up with more people, that can be a form of evidence, though you can lie online, but i guys you're just going to have to trust some people. 

I fully understand why the church has rules on not going to certain churches now, to protect the faithful. But the church is a mess,  everyone going their own way within the NO and outside the NO too. 

I wasn't talking anything about BOD/BOB. I've talked with a few feeneynites (sp?) before though (very odd bunch, hateful if you disagree with them). 

I've pretty much fallen away from the church anyways, been doing some research. I off and on defend the practices but just so much going on it's a joke.  That was really hard on me. But I do really great for the children and the guilble people and/or parents following random priests. 

I don't know what else to say but I just wanted to chime in that I've heard similar stories of this guy as well as other bad priests and I guess you'd call these scandals. Seems like every catholic church I've been to has had really bad issues. NO/62 TLM before I went to sede churches there was a priest that was married that beat up his wife in church. A reporter came to me to see if I'd do an interview with her. There's proof of that in the newspapers because it's within the church. I told some lady and she basically told me to shove it and pray for my priest, which he wasn't my priest he was Anglican usage <which makes no sense why they're catholic. Anglican isn't catholic. Put usage after it and it's ok? 

For 7 years, every year something was going on bad. Needed a break from that. 

If I knew how to record phone calls, I'd call crawford up and ask him questions to share with you for proof, though it wouldn't be right off the bat. Cult(like) leaders don't open up like that, they gotta get ahold of you first. 

Tons of confusing info.  Married SV priest who beats up his wife in church?  That's a new one and I thought I would have heard about this before, since something like that would undoubtedly have come up here on CathInfo by now.

Yeah, there's a "Catholic" Anglican Usage group (in the Conciliar Church) where while they profess Catholicism but are allowed to use some Anglican Liturgical things.  I don't agree with that whole setup, but there's no real contradiction there.  Not sure what that has to do with Traditional Catholics and SVs, since the latter would have no involvement with that kind of group.

I don't buy your assertion that Feeneyites are "hateful if you disagree" ... as most of them are quite mild-mannered, and also depends upon what you interpret as "hateful" (someone just strongly disagreeing with you?)

You said you've fallen away from the Church, but it appears that there's a hot mess of confusion in your mind about what's what, etc.

We see things like how Fr. Crawford calls them regularly ... where it MIGHT be a way to keep you indoctrinated in the cult, vs. whether he'd have other reasons to call.

As for the books, they probably recommended that you throw out Prot books/Bible (100% you should have), and the SVs (IMO rightly) hold that SSPX adhere to some grave errors, and the NO goes without saying.  There's also interpretation around where they said you "HAD TO" throw these books out, vs. whether they said you SHOULD throw them out, and the fact that they later said that exceptions could be made for sentimental stuff, it doesn't sound like they were all that rigid about it.  And I doubt they showed up at your home to make sure they were all gone or something ... which a cult might do.

I think your're putting some spins on things.  You ran into a few people there, and you're obviously confused about many things, and they told you to dump your Prot and NO (same thing) and SSPX (I can see a case for that) books ... and somehow you interpreted that as cult-like.  If you disagreed, you could have just not thrown them out and employed a mental reservation (not lied) if they asked you.

But because I sense a lot of confusion in your posts, I'm not entirely certain where there's some confused interpretation being layered on top of these experiences you had.

I felt like I had no other choice and I needed to go to church (bc it's a sin not to go then you'll go to hell if you don't.)  so I did what I felt like I had to to be able to go to their church. I could've lied but I'd feel terrible if I didn't do what they said. I'd say that's a bit cult like with other things that happened. I think for the most part certain Catholics are *very* paranoid of others because they do lie to shut the other down.  It makes sense but sometimes the paranoia is too much, but if you've been around a lot of shady people, it makes sense why they're so paranoid.

Maybe that’s why the priest there left?  Did he realize he was involved in a cult and decided it was time to break free?

Could be?  

I am sorry you had to experience that.  

I would stay around from “house chapels” run by lay people that aren’t affiliated with one of the larger groups

CMRI, SGG, RCI, SSPV, Bp. da Silva, Bp. Roi should all be fine. 

If it sounds like a cult, it probably is. What, is this priest going to inspect my closets for pink clothes or Protestant books?  Cut off trad family members because they attend a different chapel? Use the Sacraments to blackmail his members? If these things are true, get away ASAP!

Uhm, no.  We can't jump to conclusions based on the account of an obviously-confused individual.

So the first allegation was being supposedly required or forced to get rid of various books like Prot Bibles, Modernist NO junk, and SSPX stuff.  Yet what was interpreted as some absolute rigid requirement later turned out not to be such when the poster found out there were exceptions ... i.e. for things with sentimental values.  That suggests a misinterpretation of whatever was said in the first place as some absolute demand when perhaps it was nothing more than opinion and advice.  It wasn't as if they went to the poster's home and searched it.

Along similar lines, the poster claimed that Feeneyites would get "hateful" if you didn't agree.  I've never seen that, and this sounds like a the poster misreading some individual being argumentative as being "hateful".

So it sounds like we have stuff being filtered through a (partially-snowflakey) lens here.

Finally, the insinuation that Fr. Crawford calling someone on a daily basis is because he's trying to control or check up on them, and then a hint that if this poster recorded the conversation with Fr. Crawford, even then it would be difficult to get "evidence" because Fr. Crawford would "hide" his intentions.  ... as if Fr. Crawford was worried about someone recording his calls.  More likely what's going on is that the poster is reading something INTO things Fr. Crawford says that isn't actually there.

And it sounds like there may be two factions here ... meaning that you're going to get a biased perspective from the opposite faction.

In any case, we can't draw these "cult" conclusions based on what we have.  I could go on a random forum and start posting nonsense against some rival group I don't like just because I don't like them, and it could be entirely made up or at best an extremely negative spin (ascribing worst intentions to everything) due to hostility.  That kind of thing plays out ALL THE TIME betwee, say, married couples that are fighting, where someone might read the worst possible intention into any action of the other party due to the hostility, or where one of the couple will try to poison third parties against the other, telling all her friends, her children, etc. ... what a nasty evil guy the husband is.  I've seen cases, for instance, where the wife will tear into the husband for being an "absentee father", for not being home enough, without telling people that it's because said father works 80 hours per week because the wife is materialistic and demands to have this, that, or the other thing ... leaving him caught between a rock and a hardplace.  There's an example where something might be factual correct, but spun into something it's not due simply to leaving out some context.  "That man doesn't even spent 10 minutes a day with me and the kids."  ... without adding, "He gets home past midgnight after we're all asleep and wakes up early before we wake up since he's working his butt off for us since we make all kinds of demands on him due to being very materialistic."

This type of phenomenon, which I've seen before, could easily play out at the chapel level when two factions are at odds.

Finally, there are many out there who interpret ALL Traditional Catholics as cult members ... just for doing things like wearing veils, dressing modestly, and not wanting to mix with the Novus Ordo.  I know of one "Trad" woman who actually used that as an attack against her husband during divorce proceedings, characterizing the (very normal and average) Traditional chapel he went to as a cult, just to get more leverage with the judge (who happened to be an atheist).

So threads like this really need to be deleted unless there's some actual substance to them or some evidence is provided.  Now, by way of evidence, we're not talking about recorded phone conversations as if we're trying to prove something in a court of law, but just some credible testimony providing enough concrete details (vs. interpretations of events that could have the person's spin imposed on them).  "They demanded that I burn all my books."  Yeah, yeah ... that's how you took it, and admitted later that you had misinterpreted their intent.  But what did they ACTUALLY say?  Maybe it was more like, "As a Traditional Catholic, you really shouldn't be using a King James Bible.  You really need to get rid of that."  Seems reasonble to me.  Where's the cult-like demand in that?  Did they go over your house to search it for "forbidden books"?  Or, "BoD is completely wrong, a bunch of nonsense that undermines EENS dogma.  You have to wake up." = "hateful" Feeneyite.

The Church has rules about owning or reading books, and one of those rules is that Catholics are not allowed to own books on religious subjects written by heretics or non-Catholics. So they were absolutely correct to tell you that you had to throw out your protestant literature. And it is a sin to violate this law of the Church.

Right, and so a statement like what you just posted here ... could it have been construed as some kind of weird cult-like "demand" or "order" by the poster?

That's why we really need to take reports of this nature with a huge grain of salt before we jump to the conclusion of smearing Fr. Crawford's reputation (or that of his chapel there).

One person's basic Traditional Catholic principle 101 can be another person's "cult-like behavior".  I've given the example where a lot of worldly types would construe having the ladies wear chapel veils as "like a cult".  So it can be a matter of perception, perspective, background, knowledge, experience, etc.